• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    It has to be somewhere that is also accessible after an apocalypse. Where would you put this so it’s “far away where extremists couldn’t easily bomb it”, but where it’s also accessible after an apocalypse?

    • kglitch@kglitch.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      After a collapse there’d still be people nomading all over the place so they’ll find it eventually, just about anywhere. Near a place likely to be valuable for hunter-gatherers like a river mouth or lake. Or at a mountain pass where travelers will be funneled towards.

      Tibet? Central Australia? Mongolia? Canada? With the way climate change is going somewhere not too hot might be best. Tasmania, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland…

      Maybe the makers were on a budget and needed somewhere nearby. Or maybe they just wanted to make a point and have a laugh.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        After collapse you don’t want people to “eventually” stumble upon them, you need them accessible so the knowledge on the stones can be used to rebuild and guide society.

        And if people will eventually stumble upon them, it’s waaaaay more likely to happen before the collapse, since any collapse would lead to the deaths of most people. You’re constructing an incredibly unlikely scenario that will only hinder efforts to rebuild.